On Freitag, 24. Oktober 2014, 09:16:49 Tom van der Woerdt wrote:
Manuel Gebauer schreef op 19/10/14 15:29:
Hi, Tom and Rejo. Same with me. Half of the abuse complaints I
get are from Valuehost Ru. Because I run on a cheap VPS I don't
get a reassigned IP. Therefore I always fear that my
Manuel Gebauer schreef op 19/10/14 15:29:
Hi, Tom and Rejo. Same with me. Half of the abuse complaints I
get are from Valuehost Ru. Because I run on a cheap VPS I don't
get a reassigned IP. Therefore I always fear that my provider
might lose patience and shut down my server. That's why I decided
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ask your upstream to filter their reports if you can, I can testify I
have received in excess of 300 complaints from them and ironically,
they ignored all of my responses to them for the first 200 or so I
responded to.
Ultimately (if you'll excuse my
++ 21/10/14 22:29 +0200 - Manuel Gebauer:
Although, the greater risk in my opinion, comes from the question
if tor operators can be seen as service providers who would be
exempt from responsibility for transmitted information under the
term of this law. There's no precedence to my
++ 21/10/14 01:58 +0200 - Manuel Gebauer:
I learned that the qualification not select or modify acually IS
present in German law. § 8 TMG says, that the service provider is
not responsible in so far as he did not chose or modify the
transmitted information.
As the e-Commerce directive is a
Manuel Gebauer man...@myops.de wrote:
I learned that the qualification not select or modify acually IS
present in German law. § 8 TMG says, that the service provider is
not responsible in so far as he did not chose or modify the
transmitted information.
Although, the greater risk in my
Hi Fabian,
Quoting Fabian Keil (2014-10-21 12:55:21)
Manuel Gebauer man...@myops.de wrote:
Although, the greater risk in my opinion, comes from the question
if tor operators can be seen as service providers who would be
exempt from responsibility for transmitted information under the
On 10/21/2014 10:29 PM, Manuel Gebauer wrote:
Although, the greater risk in my opinion, comes from the question
if tor operators can be seen as service providers who would be
exempt from responsibility for transmitted information under the
term of this law. There's no precedence to my
++ 19/10/14 16:13 +0200 - Manuel Gebauer:
ii) in some legal systems this may mean you can be held
responsible for the traffic that is routed via your node.
Example? In Germany you might (or might not) be responsible for
traffic you relay. But not relaying part of the traffic doesn't
change a
Thanks, Rejo (and others) for elucidating the point. I now get
your line of thought.
I learned that the qualification not select or modify acually IS
present in German law. § 8 TMG says, that the service provider is
not responsible in so far as he did not chose or modify the
transmitted
Dear all,
I’ve been running tor non-exit relay freshhumbug at torrelay.nl
http://torrelay.nl/ for about 3 months now.
Recently, I tried running it as an exit relay for a week, with following
interesting results.
Set up:
- Ubuntu 14.04 running as VPS with transip.nl http://transip.nl/, latest
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Kees Goossens wrote:
However, the only thing I do with my VPS is run tor. I don???t run a web
site, and don???t have apache or whatever installed.
I didn???t investigate much further, but my hypothesis is that when
publishing the tor-exit notice on
Dear Roger,
Thanks for quick reply. This possibility did occur to me. When I asked my VPS
provider about getting more information for further diagnosis told me they
didn’t have more, but that the party that sent them the notification had been
reliable in the past. My provider has been
Kees Goossens schreef op 19/10/14 13:24:
Part 1: Abuse over HTTP.
Within one week of being an exit, my provider forwarded the following
abuse notification to me ( is the abused Russian website, is me):
Greetings,
abuse team like to inform you, that we have had mass
++ 19/10/14 13:53 +0200 - Tom van der Woerdt:
Sounds familiar. This same company (valuehost.ru?) sends me about 20 abuse
reports a day. At first I replied with explanations of what Tor is,
explaining why it's hard to do anything against this kind of abuse. Later I
[...]
IANAL but you can probably
++ 19/10/14 13:48 + - obx:
Same here, I've blacklisted their /24 in my torrc. The complaints
stopped.
That is not a sound approach: i) Tor clients will see unexpected
connection errors as some destinations are unreachable where they
should and ii) in some legal systems this may mean you can
Rejo Zenger wrote:
++ 19/10/14 13:48 + - obx:
Same here, I've blacklisted their /24 in my torrc. The complaints
stopped.
That is not a sound approach: i) Tor clients will see unexpected
connection errors as some destinations are unreachable where they
should
In torrc? Really?
On 10/19/2014 03:48 PM, obx wrote:
Same here, I've blacklisted their /24 in my torrc. The complaints
stopped.
Did the same after I got those complaints.
B/c my provider do open for every complaint a ticket I do not have another
chance than doing this:
reject 217.112.0.0/16:*
--
Toralf
pgp
Hi, Tom and Rejo. Same with me. Half of the abuse complaints I
get are from Valuehost Ru. Because I run on a cheap VPS I don't
get a reassigned IP. Therefore I always fear that my provider
might lose patience and shut down my server. That's why I decided
to block Valuehost's range 217.112.34.0/24
On 10/19/2014 01:24 PM, Kees Goossens wrote:
Lesson (for me at least): since HTTP was used, even a very reduced exit
policy is does not make one immune to abuse problems.
At this point I reverted back to being a non-exit relay, as I have no
interest in having to deal with this.
Well, no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yes there are safe harbour provisions.
When it comes to civil issues, for example DMCA (Digital Millennium
Copyright Act) issues, it is worth considering DMCA title 11 Online
Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA USA Law) as
the
Thomas,
That sounded so reasonable and persuasive that would it be a good idea to have
a formal opinion written to give to server companies early on?
They might still be looking at the time it takes to deal with notices or police
queries but they must accept that the risks of allowing Tor are
Already working on it (see
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13421)
Will involve a lot of outreach and will need to consider lots of
jurisdictions but it can be done with a few volunteers over the next few
weeks I feel. I may also be proposing on trac a @torproject.org email
for
Subject: Re: [tor-relays] exit node experience: abuse over HTTP, stealrat
infection
Already working on it (see
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/13421)
Will involve a lot of outreach and will need to consider lots of
jurisdictions but it can be done with a few volunteers
that meant
Being part of Tor the ideal is available to anyone just by downloading and
running it.
Robert
(you can't imagine how much I envy Roger Dingledine's clarity of expression)
___
tor-relays mailing list
tor-relays@lists.torproject.org
25 matches
Mail list logo
